bellbottoms
Pacific Coast Highway
Posts: 727
Likes: 201
|
Post by bellbottoms on May 27, 2020 14:04:14 GMT
A little more on authenticity. Bellbottoms said: I still just don't accept the concept, I don't think: sincerity or authenticity. The quality is quality, and you might believe every word of that love song or you might be thinking of the check you're going to cash when it hits #1. The audience isn't psychic and doesn't know your history, your intentions, nor should it. The audience is going to respond positively to a great performance, which I truly believe is more the result of craftsmanship than of some display of the artist's true (sincere, authentic, or original) self. Few people worry about whether the guy who built a hardwood table was raised among Amish woodworkers (though--I think absurdly--it seems an increasing number do). Most people worry whether it's a good table for the money. Authentic has little to do with it.
I’m struggling to put my feelings about this into a logical argument but I’ll give it a go. It’s more important what the listener gets out of the music than what the artist intended, but I don’t think the artists intention or circumstances are completely meaningless. I also don’t think that aiming for a #1 moneymaking hit and writing from the heart/experience are mutually exclusive, they exist on the same spectrum. Though I do think it’s detectable when heart/experience are employed to a greater degree. Quality is another part of the equation. Think of the Beach Boys Love You. Chock full of heart and experience. Quality in the songwriting, but not so much in the execution. It’s counted as a favourite among many Beach Boys fans. Why? Lots of reasons, but a few that jump out at me are 1) Because of Brian’s story and his state of mind at the time of writing and recording. 2) Because his fans are on his side and we want him to succeed. And 3) Because it’s “authentically” and sincerely him. I have no doubt that in Love You’s creation he also had money on his mind, he’s never made a secret of wanting to be commercially successful by creating meaningful music. In conclusion, my jumbled mess of thoughts proves nothing, but I think Love You is an example of where authenticity/sincerity/the word that I’m searching for can be detected in the listening experience.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 27, 2020 14:08:09 GMT
I was going to use Love You as an example of one I used to get on more of the Brainista-centric Beach Boys pages. "You don't get it." And it's not just about Love You, that's just one example.
But, "You don't get it," "It might be over your head," etc is just a way for people to make their own opinions seem more important or valid than yours.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 27, 2020 15:17:59 GMT
I’m struggling to put my feelings about this into a logical argument but I’ll give it a go. It’s more important what the listener gets out of the music than what the artist intended, but I don’t think the artists intention or circumstances are completely meaningless. I also don’t think that aiming for a #1 moneymaking hit and writing from the heart/experience are mutually exclusive, they exist on the same spectrum. Though I do think it’s detectable when heart/experience are employed to a greater degree. Quality is another part of the equation. Think of the Beach Boys Love You. Chock full of heart and experience. Quality in the songwriting, but not so much in the execution. It’s counted as a favourite among many Beach Boys fans. Why? Lots of reasons, but a few that jump out at me are 1) Because of Brian’s story and his state of mind at the time of writing and recording. 2) Because his fans are on his side and we want him to succeed. And 3) Because it’s “authentically” and sincerely him. I have no doubt that in Love You’s creation he also had money on his mind, he’s never made a secret of wanting to be commercially successful by creating meaningful music. In conclusion, my jumbled mess of thoughts proves nothing, but I think Love You is an example of where authenticity/sincerity/the word that I’m searching for can be detected in the listening experience. I don't entirely disagree, but I only agree in a way. I think that authenticity--in this case, let's say that means an artist writing about and/or performing music the content of which is near and dear to their heart, maybe very personal--can lead to that artist performing well, which is to say that performance/recording leaves an audience member emotionally connecting to the work (and in his/her mind, to the artist), relating to it, etc.
It's just that I don't think that authenticity is the point. The point is the connection the listener feels, which is based on the performance/recording. And the performance/recording may just as well feel authentic or lead to those kinds of connections regardless of the reality of that authenticity.
As for Love You in this example, I think it is an example of people familiar with Brian's backstory thinking they have found clues to the real person in that music. But it doesn't matter whether that was "the real person." It matters that it sounds to listeners like him. And it begs the question, how differently would the exact same recording be received as part of a "blind" listening test? Or played to people who don't know Brian's story?
All of this is messy and interconnected to be sure.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 27, 2020 15:19:38 GMT
I was going to use Love You as an example of one I used to get on more of the Brainista-centric Beach Boys pages. "You don't get it." And it's not just about Love You, that's just one example. But, "You don't get it," "It might be over your head," etc is just a way for people to make their own opinions seem more important or valid than yours. Absolutely. Anytime a response to "I don't like this" is "you don't understand," it damn well better be that you've said something to demonstrate you actually don't understand it, not just that you don't like it. Otherwise it's a pretentious response that doesn't even address the first statement. (Understanding isn't necessary for liking. Not that it's unrelated. But it isn't necessary.)
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 27, 2020 15:30:03 GMT
I was going to use Love You as an example of one I used to get on more of the Brainista-centric Beach Boys pages. "You don't get it." And it's not just about Love You, that's just one example. But, "You don't get it," "It might be over your head," etc is just a way for people to make their own opinions seem more important or valid than yours. Absolutely. Anytime a response to "I don't like this" is "you don't understand," it damn well better be that you've said something to demonstrate you actually don't understand it, not just that you don't like it. Otherwise it's a pretentious response that doesn't even address the first statement. (Understanding isn't necessary for liking. Not that it's unrelated. But it isn't necessary.) Yes, "you don't understand," that was the other one I was trying to think of.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on May 28, 2020 15:50:45 GMT
Here's another pet peeve of mine: "better than the original".
We've all seen it many, many times. An alternate version of a song gets released decades after the fact. It's the gift of hearing a song with fresh ears. But, for many, it would seem to be more than that. This "new" version may be marginally or radically different. It may only be a poorly recorded/performed demo. Doesn't really matter...it's different! And, thus, better! Some claim that this alternate version is objectively better and/or would have been more successful. Others simply claim that they prefer it to the original. While either claim may be true, I find it incredibly irritating how often I see it. I hate to sound condescending, but it really seems to me that there are massive amounts of fans who've never considered that they'd feel the exact same way if the original and alternate releases had been reversed. Beyond that, though, there are those objectively inferior versions (i.e. poorly recorded/performed demos or alternate takes) that get elevated into something they never were. Had those versions been released at the time, they would have been panned (which very well may have influenced these same fans' opinions of the songs - in a negative way). There's got to be a healthy dose of contrarianism at play here, but there's more to it than that - I think.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 28, 2020 16:08:32 GMT
Here's another pet peeve of mine: "better than the original". We've all seen it many, many times. An alternate version of a song gets released decades after the fact. It's the gift of hearing a song with fresh ears. But, for many, it would seem to be more than that. This "new" version may be marginally or radically different. It may only be a poorly recorded/performed demo. Doesn't really matter...it's different! And, thus, better! Some claim that this alternate version is objectively better and/or would have been more successful. Others simply claim that they prefer it to the original. While either claim may be true, I find it incredibly irritating how often I see it. I hate to sound condescending, but it really seems to me that there are massive amounts of fans who've never considered that they'd feel the exact same way if the original and alternate releases had been reversed. Beyond that, though, there are those objectively inferior versions (i.e. poorly recorded/performed demos or alternate takes) that get elevated into something they never were. Had those versions been released at the time, they would have been panned (which very well may have influenced these same fans' opinions of the songs - in a negative way). There's got to be a healthy dose of contrarianism at play here, but there's more to it than that - I think. I agree that this feeling is more about hearing a new version of a beloved song. That's got to be the explanation for the love that the 1975 In the Back of My Mind demo got, when it was officially released in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on May 28, 2020 16:18:45 GMT
I agree that this feeling is more about hearing a new version of a beloved song. That's got to be the explanation for the love that the 1975 In the Back of My Mind demo got, when it was officially released in 2015. In part, but I'd guess that's got more to do with context. The scarcity of Brian lead vocals, and the interest in the state of his voice, at the time of recording. I haven't seen too many fans claiming it's better than the original, for instance. (Though, maybe there were in 2015 and I've just forgotten.) What baffles me is when fans equate it with the 1974 demo of "California Feelin'". As if there isn't a noticeable decline in his voice and performance.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 28, 2020 16:18:55 GMT
Being a Beach Boys fan, that is a big one! There have been times over the years when I swear the best way to get a positive consensus on anything was for it to be unreleased ... or better yet, unheard entirely! ("Oh, I heard 14 seconds of it once from a boom box over the phone at a fan convention ... it's better than Pet Sounds! You've got to hear it!")
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on May 28, 2020 16:26:50 GMT
I'm the idiot who occasionally reads (or skims) youtube comments. This type of thing is rampant among Beatles fans as well. I'm especially thinking of releases like Anthology.
|
|
|
Post by kds on May 28, 2020 16:30:05 GMT
Being a Beach Boys fan, that is a big one! There have been times over the years when I swear the best way to get a positive consensus on anything was for it to be unreleased ... or better yet, unheard entirely! ("Oh, I heard 14 seconds of it once from a boom box over the phone at a fan convention ... it's better than Pet Sounds! You've got to hear it!") I'm the idiot who occasionally reads (or skims) youtube comments. This type of thing is rampant among Beatles fans as well. I'm especially thinking of releases like Anthology. I remember hearing that especially about the acoustic version of While My Guitar Gently Weeps when that got an official release on Anthology 3.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jun 3, 2020 14:54:50 GMT
I hear these a lot when I say that I tend to prefer rock music from the 1960s through the early 1990s.
"There's plenty of great music being made now, you just have to put in the time to find them." - First of all, bullshit. I spent a lot of time in the 2000s digging around for new bands. Most of them couldn't cobble together more than one or two good songs. Some struggled to follow up on a decent debut album. Some just didn't last. And to find a couple of halfway decent artists, I had to dig through a lot of crap. Since my time to listen to music is more limited, I'm better off sticking to the golden era.
"You should check out some other genres besides rock." - Oh, should I? Why? I've heard enough rap, techno, modern pop, EDM, etc to know that it's not for me.
"You know.....they made shitty music in the 60s and 70s too." - No foolin'. Those decades also saw legendary bands, albums, and songs that are still revered a half century later.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jun 3, 2020 15:07:26 GMT
Oooh, I'm busted! (I've said that, probably to you!)
I actually DO believe there is plenty of good music being made. But if I said what you quoted, I'd rephrase it now to be "there is plenty of good music if you want to spend the time looking for it."
Because I totally understand that especially as trends change (and so the styles we grew up with or fell in love with become less prominent) and our lives get more complicated and time-consuming, most people just don't want to spend a dozen hours a week sifting through 95% garbage and 4% mediocrity for .9% quality and .1% high quality. It's an exercise with diminishing returns, especially when all the music a person loves is still out there and available for on-demand listening.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jun 3, 2020 15:25:36 GMT
Oooh, I'm busted! (I've said that, probably to you!)
I actually DO believe there is plenty of good music being made. But if I said what you quoted, I'd rephrase it now to be "there is plenty of good music if you want to spend the time looking for it."
Because I totally understand that especially as trends change (and so the styles we grew up with or fell in love with become less prominent) and our lives get more complicated and time-consuming, most people just don't want to spend a dozen hours a week sifting through 95% garbage and 4% mediocrity for .9% quality and .1% high quality. It's an exercise with diminishing returns, especially when all the music a person loves is still out there and available for on-demand listening.
We may have had that discussion before in the past, but you were far less persistent about it than others I've run into over the years. I do think you're the one who pointed out that once you reach a certain age, new music isn't targeted for you anyway, and that's OK. That's pretty much where I am now.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Jun 10, 2020 14:07:04 GMT
I said I should do it in the Brian Wilson 1975 thread, and here it is
"(Artist) was better when they were on (insert vice here)."
You hear / see it all the time. "Aerosmith were better before they got clean." "Eric Clapton went to shit after he kicked herion." "Eddie Van Halen should start drinking again so he can write some great new music." "The Beatles sucked until they did drugs."
It's all part of the glorification of rockstar excess, that addiction is far too often credited for an artist's best work. But, I think it's more that artists tend to produce their best work when they're younger, and more susceptible to the pitfalls of the business. It's actually kind of sad that some fans would prefer their artists resume potentially deadly addictions so that they can "put out another album as a good as (insert great 60s/70s album here).
|
|